trapped or ensared vs found out...
Don't know why Paul through the Holy Spirit chose the words found out.
I agree we need to include verse 26 in the process as well.  We need
to avoid provoking one another when we go to the brother or sister
found out to be in sin as our goal should be restoration through
repentance rather than confrontational tactics.
 
Obviously there are people so beguilded by their sin and their pride
that they can do this sin and get away with it that they are not broken
immediately by being caught.  They spin it to try to rationalize it and
often they believe their own lie...even if only at first.  Like Adam
blaming Eve for what he had done.
 
When we go we should go in the spirit that Chad had mentioned that
hey I would like to help you with this because who knows, tomorrow
I may need some help and if you can pray, cry, and even hug your
way through this it would be great.  Not always will this happen on
the first visit so you need to go back as Jim had suggested.  I know
of a man that it took almost 15 years to return to a church because
of things said before the wife asked for a divorce.  She did what she
could to make him look bad and he was so hurt, angry, and upset
over the whole thing that he felt like they had turned their backs on
him.  He said he was angry with everyone including God for letting
it happen.  15 years latter he said that God never let go of him and
he praises God because of it. He is restored. A lost sheep of the
previous four verses.
 
Harry

Breuss Wane <breusswane@...> wrote:
Does it make any difference if the word should be "ensnared" or "trapped",
rather than "found out"? IOW, this isn't about discovery; this is about the
ensnared coming to the realization of being trapped in a sin and looking for
help.

If Galatians 6: 1&2 is "status quo" for our overall one-anothering, it's a
red flag when the brother/sister doesn't show some kind of willingness to
repent, even initially. The pattern for one-anothering should be so
ingrained in the pew, even the reluctance to repent is viewed as abnormal.
If someone came to me with a grievance against me, if I don't at least have
the attitude of mutual submission (like... I don't see this, but you might
be right... let's pray... let's bring an elder alongside and maybe he'll
help us see this God's way... etc.), that's a problem.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "H Dorrington" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Matthew 18:15-17


> Can you have Mt 18:15-17 without Gal 6:1&2?
> Galatians 6
> 1Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual
should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest
you too be tempted. 2Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of
Christ.
>
> Sometimes a person is so hurt, angry, and/or frustrated that repentance
isn't the first thing on his or her mind. Sometimes it takes a while for a
person to look at what they have done and say they were wrong. Yes
unrepentance requires disciplne but our goal should be restoration in a
spirit of gentleness according to Paul.
>
> Harry
>
> "Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" wrote:
> Just to clarify;
>
> If the church representation attempts to meet, or set up a meeting with
the
> offender, and he refuses to comply, they have witnessed his/her
> unrepentance. He has refused to give the 'church' a listen on the matter.
> Refusing to hear advice is the same as ignoring advice given.
>
> By this stage, it isn't so much about the offense anymore as it is about
> repentance.
> The discipline that follows is all about the lack of repentance. The
> original offense is immaterial. The discipline is not for the offense. The
> only offense that's disciplined is unrepentance.
>
> Sin doesn't make a Christian a hypocrite, because perfection is not the
mark
> of a believer.
> Lack of repentance does indicate (possible) hypocrisy, because repentance
is
> a mark of the regenerate soul.
>
> The unregenerate soul will not properly repent. He cannot.
> If a brother/sister will not repent, he or she needs to be treated as
> unregenerate because that is exactly how they are behaving.....possibly
> because they are.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Fuchs (on MSN) [mailto:SteveF_MS@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 9:36 AM
> To: soundofgrace@...
> Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Matthew 18:15-17
>
>
> I'm not a theologian, so I may be wrong, but the way the scripture reads
to
> me is that one must keep appealing to a larger band of (respected)
Christian
> witnesses. So the 'church' may be the entire body, or an appropriate
> representation of the body, such as all/most of the
elders/officers/whatever
> they are called. However, the purpose of the witnesses is always to
> objectively observe the interaction, making sure both parties are fair and
> respectable. Establishing that the accusation is true and merited (not
> trivial), and at the same time observing the heart of the offender.
>
> Considering all that, if a situation gets to step 3, it's often unlikely
the
> offender is willing to come to a church meeting where the whole
congregation
> is, and even taking a large enough representation (leaders, etc.) of the
> church to the person can be difficult. But somehow, the church
> representatives need to observe the tone and merit of the accusation, as
> well as the tone and sincerity of the response.
>
> It potentially could be done via a conference telephone call, (though it's
> not recommended). If the invitation and it's rejection is witnessed by the
> church representation so as to establish that the rejection is really
> unrepentance, then the church as a witness/advisor has done it's job.
>
> So, just like step 2 requires the offended to approach respectable
> 'witnesses' before bringing them, so step 3 requires the offended (and 2
or
> 3 witnesses) to approach an appropriate representation of the church to
set
> up the meeting.
>
> Otherwise, bringing it up by surprise would be 'blind-sighting' the
brother
> or sister. Proper, respectable, scriptural dealing with such matters is
why
> there are witnesses. If you blind-sight someone, you'll have become an
> offender yourself.
>
> The difference I think is that it's really 3 parts.
> A) Inform and coordinate with the church representation to raise the issue
> (and giving the offender proper notice that this is happening according to
> the scriptural instructions - it's hard for them to argue it when you just
> say 'You know what the book of Mat says I must do next')
> B) Confront the individual with appropriate representation of the 'church'
> as witnesses
> C) If the church representation agrees the accusation has merit, and the
> offender is unrepentant, then the exclusion from fellowship is
communicated
> to every last individual of the body.
>
> The follow-up question about the offender being a pastor is only different
> in that obtaining appropriate church representation is a littler more
> difficult and sticky. BUT, the importance of not blind-sighting the
> offender is even more obvious.
>
> I pray that helps.
> I've been through this with a good friend, and I know it's gut-wrenching
on
> everyone involved.
>
> Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Beals [mailto:jbeals@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:33 AM
> To: soundofgrace@...
> Cc: jclemens@...
> Subject: [soundofgrace] Matthew 18:15-17
>
>
> Friends:
>
> As you can see from the subject, my question is related to the passage in
> Matthew that we are all familiar with.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 15 Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault
> between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
16
> But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that "by the
> mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." 17 And if
he
> refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses
> even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax
> collector.
> - NKJV
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NB - Most of the translations seem to read very similar to the above.
>
> I put it to you this way:
> I am aware of a situation where the first two "steps" of the "Matthew 18"
> process have been followed without success.
> ... that being:
> 1. Offended party goes to offending party and seeks reconciliation
> (without success).
> 2. Offended party goes to offending party "with one or two more" and seeks
> reconciliation (without success).
>
> In the event that the process is followed through to "step three", ...
that
> being: 3. Offended party "tells it the church".
>
> My question is this:
> Is verse 17 above describing two distinct events or gatherings?
> - One (the first) where the Offended party "tells it to the church" with
> the Offending party ABSENT from that meeting... and
> - Two (the second) where the church delivers their message to the
> Offending party where he/she subsequently "refuses to hear".
> ----- OR -----
> Is verse 17 above describing a single event or gathering? where:
> - the Offended party "tells it to the church" with the Offending party
> PRESENT where he/she subsequently "refuses to hear".
>
>
> This as a practical question with practical implications so please be
> practical in your advice / exigesis.
> I realize this may spawn more questions than answers, which in itself may
> be useful, but right now I am looking for the "answers".
> My concern is for the truth and that the Scriptures be "rightly divided"
> and applied and the Lord obeyed.
>
> in Christ,
> Jamie Beals
> Ottawa
>
> PS I will read your reply posts on the SOG chat group, but if you wish,
> please also feel free to reply to me directly at jbeals@... PPS
> Here is a follow-up question: Would you treat the situation any
> differently if the Offending party was a pastor? This, of course, has
> implications with respect to the "removal of a pastor" in the same way
that
> it has implications with respect to the "removal of a member".
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>
>

--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com

To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...

To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com

To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...

To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace